A looker, she is not. I doubt she could pay a Republican to marry her.
Posted on 12/15/2014 9:31:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal “personhood.”
This loathing is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in the 1970s, I worked for a Republican, Fred Lippitt, the senate minority leader in Rhode Island, and I loved him. He was a brand of Republican now extinct—a “moderate” who was fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation. Had he been closer to my age, I could have contemplated marrying someone like Fred. Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me. And I’m not alone. Back in 1960, only 5 percent of Republicans and 4 percent of Democrats said they’d be “displeased” if their child married someone from the opposite party. Today? Forty-nine percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats would be pissed.
According to a recent study by Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar and Princeton researcher Sean Westwood, such polarization has increased dramatically in recent years.
What’s noteworthy is how entrenched this mutual animus is. It’s fine for me to use the word “hate” when referring to Republicans and for them to use the same word about me, but you would never use the word “hate” when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians.
And now party identification and hatred shape a whole host of non-political decisions. Iyengar and Westwood asked participants in their study to review the resumés of graduating high school seniors to decide which ones should receive scholarships. Some resumés had cues about party affiliation (say, member of the Young Republicans Club) and some about racial identity (also through extracurricular activities, or via a stereotypical name). Race mattered, but not nearly as much as partisanship. An overwhelming 80 percent of partisans chose the student of their own party. And this held true even if the candidate from the opposite party had better credentials.
How did we come to this pass? Obviously, my tendency is to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats, which may seem biased. But history and psychological research bear me out.
Let’s start with the history. This isn’t like a fight between siblings, where the parent says, “It doesn’t matter who started it.” Yes, it does.
A brief review of Republican rhetoric and strategies since the 1980s shows an escalation of determined vilification (which has been amplified relentlessly on Fox News since 1996). From Spiro Agnew’s attack on intellectuals as an “effete corps of impudent snobs”; to Rush Limbaugh’s hate speech; to the GOP’s endless campaign to smear the Clintons over Whitewater, then bludgeon Bill over Monica Lewinsky; to the ceaseless denigration of President Obama (“socialist,” “Muslim”), the Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.
Why does this work? A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics. What are they? Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure. How do these qualities influence political thinking?
According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality. These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance. The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes. Which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you—whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats. And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats.
So now we hate them back. And for good reason. Which is too bad. I miss the Fred Lippitts of yore and the civilized discourse and political accomplishments they made possible. And so do millions of totally fed-up Americans.
You can definitely color ME relieved!
As if she’d marry a man in the first place, or is she ruling out Condoleezza Rice, too?
Oh it just breaks my heart.
The general hatred of the Left toward conservatives is exceeded only by the hatred of the GOPe toward Ted Cruz.
With the exception of Ted Cruz, she doesn't have much to worry about from those she listed.
She is missing a lot. And I love that “....may seem biased....” Ya think?
“Which is too bad. I miss the Fred Lippitts of yore and the civilized discourse and political accomplishments they made possible. “
—
And miss the Harry Trumans.
Anything else,Susan?
.
“The Republicans have crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.”
The idiot even referred to her party’s supporters as “followers”. You’re right Professor Dimwit. We don’t think your side is legitimate at all. Reading that entire article makes you realize they’re spiking that liberal kool-aid a little too much these days. The stupid professor is delusional.
Another idiot leftist college professor spouts her bilge.
Haters gonna hate, I guess.
Go ahead and hate honey, it’s your calling in life. You are a liberal after all.
How many thousands of dollars do you want to pay to send your kid to study under this lunatic?
But hey, I’ll bet Obama plans on giving her university a very high rating.
OMG.shes a “professor”
I googled her pic.
I’m thinking if they ever remake The World According to Garp, she’d be perfect for the part of “Pooh”.
She certainly has the mentality.
In other words, conservatives have a moral compass, don't like lies and bullsh!t, are street-smart, and are personally organized -- In this context, I assume "support for authoritarianism" means "refusal to support abortion."
Which, by extension, means liberals lack a moral compass, don't mind being BSed and lied to, are personally disorganized, and lack the interest and ability to look after themselves, hence the support for biggov.
A looker, she is not. I doubt she could pay a Republican to marry her.
This lady is a nut. The polarization began when the Democrat party was taken over by the far left which is an entirely anti American phenomenon. America was designed to never become what this woman desires. She just dislikes that there is any competition. This nation was designed to protect individual liberty and be driven by popular sovereignty not elitists who are intent on establishing a new feudalism.
she’d be lucky to get a human to marry her.
I have a kid who is going to be of college age in two years. Unless you're going to be a STEM worker, or a financial professional or something of that nature, I just don't see where college offers a viable value proposition.
It seems to me that going into hock to get stupider is not a very wise decision.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.